4 ms·
"how does someone in her position know they're right and the research is wrong, and not the reverse?" This is where you pull out the rusty ol' tools of Figurin
by XMPPwocky 5y ago
"how does someone in her position know they're right and the research is wrong, and not the reverse?"
This is where you pull out the rusty ol' tools of Figuring Things Out From Evidence, which mostly boil down to:
come up with your own theories and listen to theories from others
think really hard about which one explains historical evidence the most consistently.
think about experiments to make sure theories aren't overfit to historical evidence
conduct those experiments, and "penalize" theories which don't explain the experimental results
these tools are strange things because they (noisily, but surprisingly reliably when applied truly honestly and openly) predict which theories are predictive of future experimental results.
and that's all you want out of a theory, really.
- XMPPwocky 5y agoand why should anybody else trust her? well, if she just says "actually, I'm right and the science is wrong", nobody should! Anybody can say that, regardless of whether they're right or not. I could say that! if she says, though, "actually, I'm right and the science is wrong though, and here's why:" and explains her entire process, what results she's seen hands-on in her own surgeries, and is careful to also include anything she saw that isn't consistent with her theory..., shows her reasoning, and shows her work... that's convincing and persuasive. It's also not easy, and requires lots of work. So does figuring out things in general. And that's called "an argument".
- ironmagma 5y agoIt’s sometimes called reasoning from first principles too.
- Dylan16807 5y agoAnd if one bad paper causes a thousand people to have to put in all that work to rebut it, we have a big problem with the system.